Harry Findlay to sell horses and quit racing
-
oddstrader
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:55 pm
- Location: Surrey
its all gone very sour for him, shame for racing as he brought some colour and intrigue being a pro gambler.
The way Harry was treated was a disgrace.
But it goes to show you how the BHA/ Horseman's group et al, have no clue how Betting exchanges work.
I am a follower of the former Betfair management team founder Mark Davies' blog http://www.markxdavies.com/
His blog is about Betfair's battle with governments and Racing bodies around the world. There are some great posts that expose the incompetence of the boneheads in charge of our sport. Worth a trawl through if you are bored. Some of the stuff they come out with and the tactics they employ are beyond belief.
But it goes to show you how the BHA/ Horseman's group et al, have no clue how Betting exchanges work.
I am a follower of the former Betfair management team founder Mark Davies' blog http://www.markxdavies.com/
His blog is about Betfair's battle with governments and Racing bodies around the world. There are some great posts that expose the incompetence of the boneheads in charge of our sport. Worth a trawl through if you are bored. Some of the stuff they come out with and the tactics they employ are beyond belief.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Can't say I have much sympathy for HF. Don't forget the ruling was not over turned, just the punishment.
He knew the rules and broke them. You can't have one rule for one person and one for another no matter how much PR etc they do for the sport.
Just because exchanges are a 'new' thing and the rules may need changing it makes no difference. You have to play within the CURRENT rules not what you think the rules should be.
IMO it is a case of toys and pram.
He knew the rules and broke them. You can't have one rule for one person and one for another no matter how much PR etc they do for the sport.
Just because exchanges are a 'new' thing and the rules may need changing it makes no difference. You have to play within the CURRENT rules not what you think the rules should be.
IMO it is a case of toys and pram.
Last edited by andyfuller on Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
oddstrader
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:55 pm
- Location: Surrey
i feel there must be alot more to this story!
-
SilentDave
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:30 am
- Location: Bogota, Colombia
Freddy, I agree. The rules are there to prevent people profiting from stopping their horses. HF had a net back position on his horses so stood to lose money if the horses in question didn't win.
I don't think the rules are clear. Being involved in ownership I knew that I couldn't lay my own or the yard's horses to lose but it was only the HF case that brought to my attention that if I backed my own horse and then laid some off so that my worst case scenario was break even then I was breaking the rules.
In all cases there has to be a sense of the spirit of the law and these rules are in place to prevent horses being stopped for profit.
In terms of there being more to this than meets the eye, I have heard from people who are well connected in the game that he is allegedly skint and this is a nice cover story to enable him to get rid of his racing interests while saving face.
I don't think the rules are clear. Being involved in ownership I knew that I couldn't lay my own or the yard's horses to lose but it was only the HF case that brought to my attention that if I backed my own horse and then laid some off so that my worst case scenario was break even then I was breaking the rules.
In all cases there has to be a sense of the spirit of the law and these rules are in place to prevent horses being stopped for profit.
In terms of there being more to this than meets the eye, I have heard from people who are well connected in the game that he is allegedly skint and this is a nice cover story to enable him to get rid of his racing interests while saving face.
Quite.
If conflict of interests were allowed, it would raise massive questions about the integrity of horse racing, would would give ammunition to people who argue that betting exchanges breed corruption.
Jeff
If conflict of interests were allowed, it would raise massive questions about the integrity of horse racing, would would give ammunition to people who argue that betting exchanges breed corruption.
Jeff
SilentDave wrote:Freddy, I agree. The rules are there to prevent people profiting from stopping their horses. HF had a net back position on his horses so stood to lose money if the horses in question didn't win.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
I honestly can not see where any one can claim the rules are not clear.
The rules are that you are not allowed to lay. Nothing more nothing less. People may choose to interrupt that in different ways to suit them but as the speed limit in my village is 30mph it means I can't go over 30mph at any second or I will break the rule.
It doesn't mean I can drive at 15mph for 3/4 of the village and 40mph for the last 1/4.
Yes you can dutch, yes you can back other horses, but you can not lay. We all know what a lay is, HF as much as any one else.
People seem to interrupt the rule as they see fit but when you look at the rules they are very clear - you can't lay. There is no grey area at all.
I have heard exactly the same as Silent Dave from more than one person and they are both very reliable people who know what is what in the bloodstock market.
The rules are that you are not allowed to lay. Nothing more nothing less. People may choose to interrupt that in different ways to suit them but as the speed limit in my village is 30mph it means I can't go over 30mph at any second or I will break the rule.
It doesn't mean I can drive at 15mph for 3/4 of the village and 40mph for the last 1/4.
Yes you can dutch, yes you can back other horses, but you can not lay. We all know what a lay is, HF as much as any one else.
People seem to interrupt the rule as they see fit but when you look at the rules they are very clear - you can't lay. There is no grey area at all.
I have heard exactly the same as Silent Dave from more than one person and they are both very reliable people who know what is what in the bloodstock market.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Here is the actual Rule:
92. Restrictions on laying to lose
92.1 In Paragraph 92.2, Listed Person
92.1.1 means any owner of a horse (see Rule 96), and
92.1.2 additionally, includes
92.1.2.1 where the owner is a Recognised Company, any director or Registered Agent of the company,
92.1.2.2 where the owner is a Recognised Stud Company, any director of the company,
92.1.2.3 where the owner is a Racing Partnership, the partners of the racing partnership who are notified to the Authority under Rule 65.1.2 and who are not Nominated Partners,
92.1.2.4 where the horse is subject to a lease, the lessor of the horse, and
92.1.2.5 where the horse is jointly-owned, is leased for one race only or is subject to any other lease or arrangement registered under Rule 75, any Person who, at or around the material time, played an active part in managing the horse.
92.2 A Listed Person must not
92.2.1 lay any horse he owns with a Betting Organisation to lose a race,
92.2.2 instruct another Person to do so on his behalf, or
92.2.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.
92.3 Any reference to laying a horse to lose includes any single instance of doing so, whether or not the single instance was, or was intended to be, one of a series of betting arrangements.
92.4 Nothing in this Rule prevents the laying of any horse owned by a Betting Organisation in the ordinary course of that Betting Organisation's business.
92.5 Betting Organisation means
92.5.1 any bookmaker,
92.5.2 the Tote,
92.5.3 any company offering spread betting on horseracing or person-to-person betting exchanges on horseracing, and
92.5.4 the employees of any such organisations.
92. Restrictions on laying to lose
92.1 In Paragraph 92.2, Listed Person
92.1.1 means any owner of a horse (see Rule 96), and
92.1.2 additionally, includes
92.1.2.1 where the owner is a Recognised Company, any director or Registered Agent of the company,
92.1.2.2 where the owner is a Recognised Stud Company, any director of the company,
92.1.2.3 where the owner is a Racing Partnership, the partners of the racing partnership who are notified to the Authority under Rule 65.1.2 and who are not Nominated Partners,
92.1.2.4 where the horse is subject to a lease, the lessor of the horse, and
92.1.2.5 where the horse is jointly-owned, is leased for one race only or is subject to any other lease or arrangement registered under Rule 75, any Person who, at or around the material time, played an active part in managing the horse.
92.2 A Listed Person must not
92.2.1 lay any horse he owns with a Betting Organisation to lose a race,
92.2.2 instruct another Person to do so on his behalf, or
92.2.3 receive the whole or any part of any proceeds of such a lay.
92.3 Any reference to laying a horse to lose includes any single instance of doing so, whether or not the single instance was, or was intended to be, one of a series of betting arrangements.
92.4 Nothing in this Rule prevents the laying of any horse owned by a Betting Organisation in the ordinary course of that Betting Organisation's business.
92.5 Betting Organisation means
92.5.1 any bookmaker,
92.5.2 the Tote,
92.5.3 any company offering spread betting on horseracing or person-to-person betting exchanges on horseracing, and
92.5.4 the employees of any such organisations.
Last edited by andyfuller on Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The way I remember it he wanted to BACK the horse, but LAYED it by mistake. In fact the LAY price was bigger than the back price. so he didn't profit from it. I believe he made an honest mistake.
But I do not think it good practice to be able to LAY your runners after BACKING them. We would have the situation where owners gave instructions to go out and make sure you are in front at the furlong pole and it doesn't matter if you win, to create BACK to LAY positions for owners. (I'm sure that happens tbh).
I accept he broke the rules, and so does Harry. The issue is what went on afterwards. The character assassination. the incident at the race course with Nic Coward. remember how many horses Harry was getting involved with, and they were expensive horses too. They have drove away another wealthy individual. Then the same arseholes are bleating about how racing is suffering because it is not funded (read propped up) by Betfair and bookies. They really need to get with the program. And by the way, did any of you pick up on the 2018 world cup bid? Part of our bid was a levy on bookmakers / punters for being able to bet on the tournament. This is a taste of things to come
They make me sick to my stomach. I have been looking for a job I'm that sick of this whole sorry racing sham. When I do I will never bet on a horse race or set foot on a race course again, F*** them.
But I do not think it good practice to be able to LAY your runners after BACKING them. We would have the situation where owners gave instructions to go out and make sure you are in front at the furlong pole and it doesn't matter if you win, to create BACK to LAY positions for owners. (I'm sure that happens tbh).
I accept he broke the rules, and so does Harry. The issue is what went on afterwards. The character assassination. the incident at the race course with Nic Coward. remember how many horses Harry was getting involved with, and they were expensive horses too. They have drove away another wealthy individual. Then the same arseholes are bleating about how racing is suffering because it is not funded (read propped up) by Betfair and bookies. They really need to get with the program. And by the way, did any of you pick up on the 2018 world cup bid? Part of our bid was a levy on bookmakers / punters for being able to bet on the tournament. This is a taste of things to come
They make me sick to my stomach. I have been looking for a job I'm that sick of this whole sorry racing sham. When I do I will never bet on a horse race or set foot on a race course again, F*** them.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Not knowing the rules by which you agree to, which you have by owning race horses, is no excuse when you fall foul of them.SilentDave wrote:Being involved in ownership I knew that I couldn't lay my own or the yard's horses to lose but it was only the HF case that brought to my attention that if I backed my own horse and then laid some off so that my worst case scenario was break even then I was breaking the rules.
Just like how you can't claim ignorance of the law when you break it no matter how obscure the law is.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
If I remember correctly, which I may not have done, but HF was done for doing exactly that - he had more on his horse because he knew it would lead and laid off a portion ir after a short distance to lock in profit.mugsgame wrote:We would have the situation where owners gave instructions to go out and make sure you are in front at the furlong pole and it doesn't matter if you win, to create BACK to LAY positions for owners. (I'm sure that happens tbh).
Also if he laid off as you said orginaly at a higher price than he backed, if the horse did not win he did profit. He would have lost all his back stake had he not laid off. So by laying off you lose less and in turn profit.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
I agree the way it was handled from a PR situation was very poor and there are some very questionable things that went on afterwards such as the race course incident. Also the initial punishment was odd given some of the other punishments we see handed down.
There is no denying his passion for the game or at least the passion he once had which is a great loss to the sport, I used to love hearing his views.
But I do think he kind of made his own bed by laying in the first place. For a professional punter and big owner to not being aware of the rules and to not have got the agreement he said he had in writing was a big mistake. AS we all know a verbal agreement is worth the paper it is written on.
There is no denying his passion for the game or at least the passion he once had which is a great loss to the sport, I used to love hearing his views.
But I do think he kind of made his own bed by laying in the first place. For a professional punter and big owner to not being aware of the rules and to not have got the agreement he said he had in writing was a big mistake. AS we all know a verbal agreement is worth the paper it is written on.
Rules are Rules yes,
but the current rules have huge grey areas in and need to be addressed imo.
basically if you touch the lay button by mistake or otherwise your fecked, even if you correct your mistake immediately, but yet Dutching is fine
you couldn't make it up
.
but the current rules have huge grey areas in and need to be addressed imo.
basically if you touch the lay button by mistake or otherwise your fecked, even if you correct your mistake immediately, but yet Dutching is fine
you couldn't make it up
.